Saying the rosary doesn't work. Fact

[omaghjoe]

Catholicism is a religious belief system, it didn't murder anyone, and murder is the no.1 wrong within it. People who identify as Catholic of course did murder but then so did atheists.

Atheists certainly have murdered. But have any done so in the name of atheism?

Can the same be said of Christianity and its various sects?

And is Christianity not supposed to provide some moral guidance?

More or less Stalin and esp Mao were hell bend on squashing religious belief thorugh genocide, you could probably throw Pol Pot into that one too.
You seem to have no bother embracing Britishness into your life despite everything that has been done in the name of Britain.

You are not even contending that these people were atheists who murdered in the name of atheism. You have offered no argument here

Yes I have. They committed religious genocide in the name of an ideology that held religious belief as the superstitious. Atheism was an intrinsic part of 20th century communism.

[omaghjoe]

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

Evidence?

So no evidence then?

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

[omaghjoe]

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..
Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

[omaghjoe]

Persisting with the God of the gaps things is a nonsense J70 especially when it is started off life as a derogatory term for people of weak faith. Its what drove you to reject faith in the first place as a youngster so I guess if I felt the same way I'd be clinging to it too.
Faith comes from within that all I can say.
Why do you believe that only the empirical realm exists, in fact what is your rationale for believing that it exists at all? instinct?
Why do you belief in a solely material and naturalistic cosmos esp when massive holes have been blown in it by quantum mechanics and relativity? Not to mention the existence of our good selves.

If "faith" comes from within, I'm clearly lacking something then Joe, aren't I? As are many other people.

And the god of the gaps issue clearly addresses the fact that various cultures over the millennia have attributed cause and effect for a multitude of stuff to whatever god(s) they believed were pulling the strings. Why do we dismiss the beliefs of the ancient Romans or Egyptians or, more recently, pre-christian Native Americans, or various modern day faiths other than our own, but draw the line when it comes to our own particular religion? Why is this ok, but questioning the actual existence of god(s) is so problematic? Is there a different set of judgement/assessment rules required for the latter?

On the general perception/reality stuff, we've discussed that a few times before. I do not have the time to get sucked into a week-long back and forth with you rehashing the same stuff. Its already there on the board for anyone who is interested.

I dont want to tell you anything about yourself J70 but I believe everyone has faith inside them.
When you say you for example what are you talking about? your body, your brain?, your millions cells, your genome, your 1000s miles of DNA strings, the trillions of atoms, your quarks. Most of which (certainly all of the later two) are not the same ones as occupied the space where you imagine you to have occupied last year or probably even last month.
All of which have come about and behave in a way entirely controlled by nature after somehow all being set in motion at the big bang.
Or do you believe there is an independent you that thinks for himself and makes his own decisions, has relationships, cares for things, or even experiences things.. well just like God science has found no evidence of these things existing whatsoever even tho ironically enough its existance completely on the last one.

I wouldn't say that their inner faith is wrong as such either, it was just reflected outwardly in a different way. I must have said that 100 times on here, but the same people keep asking me that same question.

[omaghjoe]

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress

To prove anything empirically you'd have to prove empirism logically empirism, deductive reasoning, and causality are flawed as a complete view of the cosmos.

Throughout history religion and faith have been the main driver of society in fact there is alot of evidence that would suggest its the reason civilisation began. So I'm wondering how they could stifle its progress.
But anyway if you can define exactly what progress in a society is so all we know what we're talking about and while your at it explain why you conform to a society or are interested in it as neither of those two things don't really exist scientifically.

[seafoid]

Jane Nic Ruaidhrí known as Jane William Phetey, was among the Irish speakers interviewed by Éamonn Ó Tuathail for his work Sgéalta Mhuintir Luinigh, published in 1933, and she was still on the spot almost twenty years later when another flurry of interest in Tyrone Irish broke out. At this period she met and assisted Michael J Murphy, Heinrich Wagner, and Proinsias Ó Conluain, among others. James participated to a lesser extent in these activities. Ó Conluain, working for Radio Éireann, made further sound recordings of Jane in 1951. Both Murphy and Ó Conluain describe the less than enthusiastic welcome they received from the Bodach, dressed up as the returned American sister, who did not see any merit in bothering with the Irish language. Stockman and Wagner described Jane herself as "a fluent speaker with a rich vocabulary. She never travelled except on one trip to Belfast where she was recorded by Ó Tuathail."

Years later Mickey Harte was trying to motivate the Tyrone footballers to beat the Harlem globetrotters aka the Dublin footballers. Mickey ransacked the local culture to find an appropriate meme around to which to build a team spirit .
Tyrone prayed the Rosary every night for 6 months.

The Rosary had no chance. Dublin had the match won after 15 minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Galway hurlers have a meme for 10 minutes into the second half after the Cailleach does the beat switch

Scaoil amach an bobailin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FkApmj8K1M

[LCohen]

Catholicism is a religious belief system, it didn't murder anyone, and murder is the no.1 wrong within it. People who identify as Catholic of course did murder but then so did atheists.

Atheists certainly have murdered. But have any done so in the name of atheism?

Can the same be said of Christianity and its various sects?

And is Christianity not supposed to provide some moral guidance?

More or less Stalin and esp Mao were hell bend on squashing religious belief thorugh genocide, you could probably throw Pol Pot into that one too.
You seem to have no bother embracing Britishness into your life despite everything that has been done in the name of Britain.

You are not even contending that these people were atheists who murdered in the name of atheism. You have offered no argument here

Yes I have. They committed religious genocide in the name of an ideology that held religious belief as the superstitious. Atheism was an intrinsic part of 20th century communism.

There is little to be said in defence of Stalin, Mao etc. It's fairly clear that Stalin was an atheist (though well schooled in religion) but there is a strong argument that the only thing he cared about in terms of religion was destroying any power structure that might exist to rival or challenge his own.

After all he did very little to work out what people actually believed before persecuting them.

[LCohen]

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

Evidence?

So no evidence then?

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Some actual causal link between the individual method and the outcome

[LCohen]

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..
Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

I missed the bit about whether you belief in Thor etc and if not, why not?

[LCohen]

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress

To prove anything empirically you'd have to prove empirism logically empirism, deductive reasoning, and causality are flawed as a complete view of the cosmos.

Throughout history religion and faith have been the main driver of society in fact there is alot of evidence that would suggest its the reason civilisation began. So I'm wondering how they could stifle its progress.
But anyway if you can define exactly what progress in a society is so all we know what we're talking about and while your at it explain why you conform to a society or are interested in it as neither of those two things don't really exist scientifically.

I said that affording religious faith special protection special faith stifles progress. Look at the news this morning about the Caribbean storms. Was it faith in god and his mysterious ways that told us where that storm was and is headed? Will prayers to him influence its path or ferocity? Thankfully some people try to advance knowledge of the world to progress our lot.

We have issues of equality today. Some are standing in the way of progress without seemingly any need to produce evidence. They simply state that they believe something is wrong.

I can see that equality of gender, race and consensual sexual orientation would be progress. Maybe you cannot? I can see that those who simply object to this progress, claim that there is no evidential burden on them to substantiate their claims and demand what we give them this special exemption out of respect to their faith are blocking progress.

[omaghjoe]

Catholicism is a religious belief system, it didn't murder anyone, and murder is the no.1 wrong within it. People who identify as Catholic of course did murder but then so did atheists.

Atheists certainly have murdered. But have any done so in the name of atheism?

Can the same be said of Christianity and its various sects?

And is Christianity not supposed to provide some moral guidance?

More or less Stalin and esp Mao were hell bend on squashing religious belief thorugh genocide, you could probably throw Pol Pot into that one too.
You seem to have no bother embracing Britishness into your life despite everything that has been done in the name of Britain.

You are not even contending that these people were atheists who murdered in the name of atheism. You have offered no argument here

Yes I have. They committed religious genocide in the name of an ideology that held religious belief as the superstitious. Atheism was an intrinsic part of 20th century communism.

There is little to be said in defence of Stalin, Mao etc. It's fairly clear that Stalin was an atheist (though well schooled in religion) but there is a strong argument that the only thing he cared about in terms of religion was destroying any power structure that might exist to rival or challenge his own.

After all he did very little to work out what people actually believed before persecuting them.

Despite it being part of their ideologies that religion was a superstitious distraction that needed to be eradicated?

[omaghjoe]

Doing so would more likely have a player who's head is in the right place, more likely to get maximum performance for the player and more likely to get maximum performance for the team. It a save assumption

Evidence?

So no evidence then?

A manager's methods are judged on his results what sort of evidence are you looking for?

Some actual causal link between the individual method and the outcome

Has there been a causal link established between psychology/emotions and neurology - human action
I think I read before that it had actually been proved there is no link, so we will also be doing away team talks, team building, motivation etc as there is no causal evidence? Come to think of it is there causal link between any training and results especially in a team skill sport like football?

I'll hardly be starting the bines agin due to a lack of casual link with lung cancer even tho I love them.

[omaghjoe]

As an aside I'm pretty agnostic but I've to laugh at the fervour in which vast swathes of pseudo-intellectuals imbrace atheism and science with a feeling of smug superiority over religious folk. It's evident daily on this board.

Religious attempts to rationalise the universe are just as valid your scientific attempts to do the same. 600 years ago the smartest people knew as an undeniable fact that the earth was the centre of the solar system and probably sneered at those with more antiquated notions. In 100 or 200 years there'll be another slew of pseudo-intellectuals who'll laugh at the ideas upon which many atheists today hang their existence on.

Who is moving knowledge on - science or religion?

Everyone on here is an atheist. Omaghjoe, Iceman and Fearon included

Everyone on here is a person of faith otherwise you'd see the pointless futility of your own life

So do you believe in Thor etc? If not, why not?

Is my life futile? In what way does God the creator or god the overseer make my life not futile?

As I've mentioned before religion is a reflection of faith.

My retort was rhetorical and tongue in cheek but anyway..
Probably not futile as you place faith in your life in some sort of nonphysical entity relationships, emotions, even consciousness etc. There is no evidence that these things exist according to science but maybe you live your life to keep quarks whizzing and popping in and out of existence even tho they have only been known about for the last 50 years or so?

I missed the bit about whether you belief in Thor etc and if not, why not?

I wouldn't say that their inner faith is wrong as such either, it was just reflected outwardly in a different way. I must have said that 100 times on here, but the same people keep asking me that same question.

[omaghjoe]

I completely get omaghjoe's view that everything in the universe shouldn't necessarily be viewed empirically. That's fine. The existence of God needn't necessarily be evidence-based.

So much of what was "explained" by gods has subsequently been proved empirically to have a rational scientific explanation. We should at the very least be deeply suspicious of any remaining matters that people attempt to "explain" by gods

The issue that I have with spiritualists is not that they believe, or that this belief is not rationally based or indeed that they choose to order their lives around these beliefs. The fact that all that guff originates within them and is not evidence based is amusing rather than harmful. The issue is when it crosses the line and becomes harmful. When these spiritual stirrings within in them manifest into declarations of how others should order their lives and matters of public policy then they have the habit of being harmful. There is then the sense of entitlement that faith, typically their personal faith should be afforded some special protections that other opinions should not. That is harmful to society as it stifles progress

To prove anything empirically you'd have to prove empirism logically empirism, deductive reasoning, and causality are flawed as a complete view of the cosmos.

Throughout history religion and faith have been the main driver of society in fact there is alot of evidence that would suggest its the reason civilisation began. So I'm wondering how they could stifle its progress.
But anyway if you can define exactly what progress in a society is so all we know what we're talking about and while your at it explain why you conform to a society or are interested in it as neither of those two things don't really exist scientifically.

I said that affording religious faith special protection special faith stifles progress. Look at the news this morning about the Caribbean storms. Was it faith in god and his mysterious ways that told us where that storm was and is headed? Will prayers to him influence its path or ferocity? Thankfully some people try to advance knowledge of the world to progress our lot.

We have issues of equality today. Some are standing in the way of progress without seemingly any need to produce evidence. They simply state that they believe something is wrong.

I can see that equality of gender, race and consensual sexual orientation would be progress. Maybe you cannot? I can see that those who simply object to this progress, claim that there is no evidential burden on them to substantiate their claims and demand what we give them this special exemption out of respect to their faith are blocking progress.

Why do you care where the storm is headed?
Why is equality for these things progress? How will it advance society? What evidence do you have to back this up? Historically Civilisations have thrived in equality. Not to mention that human gravitate away from such societies as they also seek opportunity.

[LCohen]

Catholicism is a religious belief system, it didn't murder anyone, and murder is the no.1 wrong within it. People who identify as Catholic of course did murder but then so did atheists.

Atheists certainly have murdered. But have any done so in the name of atheism?

Can the same be said of Christianity and its various sects?

And is Christianity not supposed to provide some moral guidance?

More or less Stalin and esp Mao were hell bend on squashing religious belief thorugh genocide, you could probably throw Pol Pot into that one too.
You seem to have no bother embracing Britishness into your life despite everything that has been done in the name of Britain.

You are not even contending that these people were atheists who murdered in the name of atheism. You have offered no argument here

Yes I have. They committed religious genocide in the name of an ideology that held religious belief as the superstitious. Atheism was an intrinsic part of 20th century communism.

There is little to be said in defence of Stalin, Mao etc. It's fairly clear that Stalin was an atheist (though well schooled in religion) but there is a strong argument that the only thing he cared about in terms of religion was destroying any power structure that might exist to rival or challenge his own.

After all he did very little to work out what people actually believed before persecuting them.

Despite it being part of their ideologies that religion was a superstitious distraction that needed to be eradicated?

There was a fair amount in their supposed ideologies that they didn't actually believe.

On religion itself is there any evidence that they gave a shit about the private beliefs of anybody who was not publicly aligned with a rival power structure?